I feel so much safer, now that the War on Terror has been won, and illegal immigration has been halted, and our nuclear power plants have been built, that we have intelligence assets left over to examine what a million people have been searching for on Google.

------------------

SAN JOSE, Calif. - The Bush administration, seeking to revive an online pornography law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, has subpoenaed Google Inc. for details on what its users have been looking for through its popular search engine.ADVERTISEMENTAdblock

Google has refused to comply with the subpoena, issued last year, for a broad range of material from its databases, including a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period, lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department said in papers filed Wednesday in federal court in San Jose.

Privacy advocates have been increasingly scrutinizing Google's practices as the company expands its offerings to include e-mail, driving directions, photo-sharing, instant messaging and Web journals.

Although Google pledges to protect personal information, the company's privacy policy says it complies with legal and government requests. Google also has no stated guidelines on how long it keeps data, leading critics to warn that retention is potentially forever given cheap storage costs.

The government contends it needs the data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches as part of an effort to revive an Internet child protection law that was struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court on free-speech grounds.

The 1998 Child Online Protection Act would have required adults to use access codes or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online, and it would have punished violators with fines up to $50,000 or jail time. The high court ruled that technology such as filtering software may better protect children.

The matter is now before a federal court in Pennsylvania, and the government wants the Google data to help argue that the law is more effective than software in protecting children from porn.

The Mountain View-based company told The San Jose Mercury News that it opposes releasing the information because it would violate the privacy rights of its users and would reveal company trade secrets.

Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, said the company will fight the government's efforts "vigorously."

"Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching," Wong said.

----------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE

Federal prosecutors preparing to defend a controversial Internet pornography law in court have asked Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and America Online to hand over millions of search records--a request that Google is adamantly denying.

In court documents filed Wednesday, the Bush administration asked a federal judge in San Jose, Calif., to force Google to comply with a subpoena for the information, which would reveal the search terms of a broad swath of the search engine's visitors.

Prosecutors are requesting a "random sampling" of 1 million Internet addresses accessible through Google's popular search engine, and a random sampling of 1 million search queries submitted to Google over a one-week period.

Google said in a statement sent to CNET News.com on Thursday that it will resist the request "vigorously."

The Bush administration's request is part of its attempts to defend the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which is being challenged in court in Philadelphia by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU says Web sites cannot realistically comply with COPA and that the law violates the right to freedom of speech mandated by the First Amendment.

The search engine companies are not parties to the suit.

An attorney for the ACLU said Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL received identical subpoenas and chose to comply with them rather than fight the request in court.

Yahoo acknowledged on Thursday that it complied with the Justice Department's request but said no personally identifiable information was handed over. "We are vigorous defenders of our users' privacy," said Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako. "We did not provide any personal information in response to the Justice Department's subpoena. In our opinion this is not a privacy issue."

Osako declined to provide details, but court documents in the Google case show that the government has been demanding "the text of each search string entered" by users over a time period of between one week and two months, plus a listing of Web sites taken from the search engine's index.

"Our understanding is that MSN and AOL have complied with the government's request, that Yahoo has provided some information in response, but that information wasn't completely satisfactory (according to) the government," ACLU staff attorney Aden Fine said.

--------------------------------------------

Thank you very much, AOL, Microsoft, and Yahoo. I heard on the radio that this subpoena was issued A YEAR AGO and this is the first we hear of it.

While I don't have a problem with other law enforcement activities taking place even when the laundry list of things you consider more important have not yet been solved, I don't see where the government gets off demanding that a private business provide them reports and research material with details of customers so they can defend thier law. You wrote it, you research it your damn self.

I'm really sick of this den-mother crap in regaurds to the internet though. Supervise your child and be aware of what they are viewing and insist that the institutions you entrust them to during the day do the same. It's not a childs playground. If that's what we want, then build a net for them and police what gets put in it.

Originally Posted By Waldo: Lets see, I'm sure it probably went like this...

Porn, Porn, Porn, Gimps, Midiget porn, ect.

Yup.

"Sometimes I'm in the mood for nasty close-ups, sometimes I like them arty and air-brushed. Sometimes it's a spread brown-eye kind of night, sometimes it's girl-on-girl time. Sometimes a steamy letter will do it, sometimes - not often, but sometimes - I like the idea of a chick with a horse." - Banky Edwards

When I was younger, 10 maybe. Me and My friends had a magazine that we had hid out in the woods in an old building foundation. I dont see any harm in it. The fact that we werent supposed to have it made it even more fun go look at. Im sure it somehow shaped the person I am, but in a way Im not aware of. Whos to say.

It is fairly simple. Those who claim it "can't be done" are doing nothing more than punting their responcibility to everyone else in society to monitor their kids. I don't want my daughter to view it either, but it isn't my ISPs job to filter our web access for her.

In principle I agree with you, but in practice these laws place a pretty high burden on all servers and services that publish user content. Usenet, free ftp sites, web houses, message boards, etc. Putting them on the hook for controling what a user posts is not such a grand idea.

For those with a knee-jerk reaction--but no time to actually read the article--here is the important part--

The government contends it needs the data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches as part of an effort to revive an Internet child protection law that was struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court on free-speech grounds.

The 1998 Child Online Protection Act would have required adults to use access codes or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online, and it would have punished violators with fines up to $50,000 or jail time. The high court ruled that technology such as filtering software may better protect children.

The matter is now before a federal court in Pennsylvania, and the government wants the Google data to help argue that the law is more effective than software in protecting children from porn.

God forbid the government should seek to keep kiddies from accessing porn.

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:God damn, but Bush is making me almost wish I had voted fror Kerry instead.

I already wish I had voted Libertarian.

Yeah....at least under Clinton and Kerry's plan.....we'd all be elligible formore government handouts and sympathy for all other ..."God knows what ails yah"! Because it takes a village to raise a democrat!

Takes me back to the day when I was, well, less than 18, and looking for the "artistic imagery" to satisfy my "growing" curiosity (translation, Naked Chicks to whack it to). People are so damn obsessed with children seeing nudity, yet think unfettered violence is OK. Although I moniter my children's media intake, I for one would rather have them see naked boobies than someone taking a head shot, R rating vs PG 13.

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:For those with a knee-jerk reaction--but no time to actually read the article--here is the important part--

The government contends it needs the data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches as part of an effort to revive an Internet child protection law that was struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court on free-speech grounds.

The 1998 Child Online Protection Act would have required adults to use access codes or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online, and it would have punished violators with fines up to $50,000 or jail time. The high court ruled that technology such as filtering software may better protect children.

The matter is now before a federal court in Pennsylvania, and the government wants the Google data to help argue that the law is more effective than software in protecting children from porn.

God forbid the government should seek to keep kiddies from accessing porn.

1. It's not their job

2. It's not in their power.

3. There is no "fishing expedition for a good cause" clause in the bill of rights.

The liberals on the Supreme Court are such fuckheads. They have no problem circumscribing political speech (which is the essence of what the 1st amendment is for) in the name of campaign finance reform, but make ridiculous rulings saying that internet pron is free speech that must be protected